California lawmakers pass bill to teach gay history

[Barrister]

I really have no idea why, aside from delibrate choice and the unfortunate capture of the teaching curriculum by the 60s generation, Canadian history is viewed as deadly dull by most Canadians.

Yeah I mean who can forget the inspirational exploits of such great Canadians as...um...erm...

Billy Bishop? Or is he an embarassment now?

I'm pretty sure I mentioned him. :Canuck

And why on earth would he ever be thought of as an embarassment?

Though if you want an inspirational Canadian hero (though not meeting the grumbler criteria for the most part) look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Steele

[Martinus]

Who do you consider heroic, Grumbler?

I think that the most heroic people are those who could have hated and maybe even should have hated, but didn't, and resisted the temptation over some period of time.  MLK, Gandhi, Mandela, and their ilk.

Probably next on my list would be those who deliberately sacrificed their lives so that others might live.   People like Liviu Librescu and Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (a Canadian, btw).  This happens frequently in wartime, by policemen, and by firemen, but in a way it is even more heroic when done by people who haven't had to consider the possibility until the moment came.

And, of course, people who risk life and/or health to aid others are heroic, though not perhaps so heroic as those who act knowing the price they will pay.  Arland Williams five times passed on the rescue line to his fellow survivors in the Air Florida Flight 90 disaster.  By the time they had all been rescued, he had succumbed.

I consider people like that heroic.

Who do you consider heroic?

Wow, Jesus Christ must be at the top of your list then

It kinda detracts from heroism when you know you will come back to life after 3 days, you know.

[dps]

Forgive me for being a homer, but the Klondike Gold Rush is fascinating history.  I have several books on Arctic Exploration (northwest passage, Sir John Franklin) which is great stuff.  Louis Riel.  Sam Steele.  Billy Bishop.  Vimy Ridge.  Dieppe.  HMCS Bonaventure.  FLQ.

The Klondike Gold Rush, Riel, and FLQ,  and Steele and Bishop to a lessor extent I'll grant you, but IMO the search for the Northwest passage (and related Arctic explorations), Vimy Ridge, and Dieppe are more World History than Canadian History.  And what's the historical significance of the Bonaventure?  It doesn't seem more historically important than many other light carriers laid down in WWII.

An example of this was visiting old Quebec, and seeing all sorts of European tourists drawn by the history of the place - including that of such figures as Wolfe and Montcalm (I dunno, would a Texan have heard of either?  ).

You'll be lucky to find a Texan who knows any history besides the Alamo.

I see. To be heroic, you have to either not be a hater, or die in action. No room for scientific heroes.

To be fair, he did include those who risk life and/or health to aid others, not just those who die in action.

[Agelastus]

I really have no idea why, aside from delibrate choice and the unfortunate capture of the teaching curriculum by the 60s generation, Canadian history is viewed as deadly dull by most Canadians.

Yeah I mean who can forget the inspirational exploits of such great Canadians as...um...erm...

Billy Bishop? Or is he an embarassment now?

I'm pretty sure I mentioned him. :Canuck

And why on earth would he ever be thought of as an embarassment?

What's the phrase?

Something like "line shooter" isn't it?

His exploits could be genuine or they could be so much hot air. I know Mannock's total was artificially inflated to try and lift him above Bishop, but even when you strip the egregious additions out Mannock, McCudden and several others have more kills that can be crosschecked and confirmed with German records than Bishop has - quite a lot more IIRC.

[Barrister]

Forgive me for being a homer, but the Klondike Gold Rush is fascinating history.  I have several books on Arctic Exploration (northwest passage, Sir John Franklin) which is great stuff.  Louis Riel.  Sam Steele.  Billy Bishop.  Vimy Ridge.  Dieppe.  HMCS Bonaventure.  FLQ.

The Klondike Gold Rush, Riel, and FLQ,  and Steele and Bishop to a lessor extent I'll grant you, but IMO the search for the Northwest passage (and related Arctic explorations), Vimy Ridge, and Dieppe are more World History than Canadian History.  And what's the historical significance of the Bonaventure?  It doesn't seem more historically important than many other light carriers laid down in WWII.

What does it matter that items like that are world history - they're also an important part of Canadian history too.

And HMCS Bonaventure?  I just was so surprised when I found out (as an adult) we actually used to have an aircraft carrier.  It was certainly never taught in school.

[Capetan Mihali]

I see. To be heroic, you have to either not be a hater, or die in action. No room for scientific heroes.

To be fair, he did include those who risk life and/or health to aid others, not just those who die in action.

Or maybe "heroes" is just not a very meaningful conceptual category for assessing people's lives.  I can see "heroic actions" being useful, but a person's life assessed as "heroic"...?

I'd be more interested in assessing a list of Canadian "world-historical individuals"... 

[Ed Anger]

The guy who came up with Timbits.

[Malthus]

I see. To be heroic, you have to either not be a hater, or die in action. No room for scientific heroes.

To be fair, he did include those who risk life and/or health to aid others, not just those who die in action.

Or maybe "heroes" is just not a very meaningful conceptual category for assessing people's lives.  I can see "heroic actions" being useful, but a person's life assessed as "heroic"...?

I'd be more interested in assessing a list of Canadian "world-historical individuals"... 

Sure - define "world-historical individuals".

[dps]

Forgive me for being a homer, but the Klondike Gold Rush is fascinating history.  I have several books on Arctic Exploration (northwest passage, Sir John Franklin) which is great stuff.  Louis Riel.  Sam Steele.  Billy Bishop.  Vimy Ridge.  Dieppe.  HMCS Bonaventure.  FLQ.

The Klondike Gold Rush, Riel, and FLQ,  and Steele and Bishop to a lessor extent I'll grant you, but IMO the search for the Northwest passage (and related Arctic explorations), Vimy Ridge, and Dieppe are more World History than Canadian History.  And what's the historical significance of the Bonaventure?  It doesn't seem more historically important than many other light carriers laid down in WWII.

What does it matter that items like that are world history - they're also an important part of Canadian history too.

It doesn't "matter" I don't suppose--it's just that those are things that someone not specifically studying Canadian history should still be familiar with if they have a good general knowledge of world history.

And HMCS Bonaventure?  I just was so surprised when I found out (as an adult) we actually used to have an aircraft carrier.  It was certainly never taught in school.

Ok, but that puts you in a group with the Netherlands, Australia, and Argentina--none of which are exactly prominent in the history of nanal aviation.

[Capetan Mihali]

Sure - define "world-historical individuals".

I know shamefully little about Canadian history, but I am surely not trying to get in on the Canada-bashing by any means.  I think one way to tell a good narrative to the youth is to look at the history of a nation-state, e.g. Canada, and look at the figures who radically transformed that society (or were positioned to act at the moment of a radical transformation of that society), and examine the way their decisions/historical moment came to be and the effects they had.  A moral or ethical analysis is definitely part of this, but needn't be guiding.  With Oex, I think there is definitely a problem with teaching a corrective narrative when the "incorrect" one is unfamiliar to the student. 

I was being ironic with Hegel's "world-historical" phrase, just to give another way of recognizing Important Individuals without getting into the whole "hero"-or-not debate (which I remember being kind of acute after 9/11).  Someone like Andrew Jackson is clearly pivotal in US history, but completely ambivalent at best in terms of the current morality.  Heroism seems to me to be something that can really only be identified in certain moments or actions (and even then tends to be complicated: for instance, is self-sacrifice the value to be privileged above all else in determining a hero?), rather than a person's life or historical legacy.

EDIT:  I don't know, I've just never been that attached to the idea of the "hero."  I am inspired by historical personages, sometimes quite movingly, but I don't necessarily feel that heroism is the best lens to understand them.  MLK, for instance, was both an amazingly important and valuable historical figure, and a complicated and not uniformly "heroic" human being.  Hero-izing him may elevate a certain kind of significance while also erasing valuable human elements of his life as a man.  And, for me, MLK only exists in the context in which he existed; there really can be no "MLK" without Malcolm X, without SNCC, etc.  I think the "hero" tendency may reduce a person's appreciation for both the historical moment and the extraordinary actions of the individual.  To continue with MLK, his nonviolence for example can only really be appreciated when you see that there were strong and legitimate actors at the same moment rejecting a nonviolent approach. 

[The Brain]

Didn't we start out at "inspirational" or thereabouts? I think it's a more useful term if we are still at least partly talking about history's boringness or lack thereof.

[Malthus]

Sure - define "world-historical individuals".

I know shamefully little about Canadian history, but I am surely not trying to get in on the Canada-bashing by any means.  I think one way to tell a good narrative to the youth is to look at the history of a nation-state, e.g. Canada, and look at the figures who radically transformed that society (or were positioned to act at the moment of a radical transformation of that society), and examine the way their decisions/historical moment came to be and the effects they had.  A moral or ethical analysis is definitely part of this, but needn't be guiding.  With Oex, I think there is definitely a problem with teaching a corrective narrative when the "incorrect" one is unfamiliar to the student.

Actually, that was me, not Oex.

I was being ironic with Hegel's "world-historical" phrase, just to give another way of recognizing Important Individuals without getting into the whole "hero"-or-not debate (which I remember being kind of acute after 9/11).  Someone like Andrew Jackson is clearly pivotal in US history, but completely ambivalent at best in terms of the current morality.  Heroism seems to me to be something that can really only be identified in certain moments or actions (and even then tends to be complicated: for instance, is self-sacrifice the value to be privileged above all else in determining a hero?), rather than a person's life or historical legacy.

EDIT:  I don't know, I've just never been that attached to the idea of the "hero."  I am inspired by historical personages, sometimes quite movingly, but I don't necessarily feel that heroism is the best lens to understand them.  MLK, for instance, was both an amazingly important and valuable historical figure, and a complicated and not uniformly "heroic" human being.  Hero-izing him may elevate a certain kind of significance while also erasing valuable human elements of his life as a man.  And, for me, MLK only exists in the context in which he existed; there really can be no "MLK" without Malcolm X, without SNCC, etc.  I think the "hero" tendency may reduce a person's appreciation for both the historical moment and the extraordinary actions of the individual.  To continue with MLK, his nonviolence for example can only really be appreciated when you see that there were strong and legitimate actors at the same moment rejecting a nonviolent approach.

There is no lack of Canadians who have radically transformed their society. To name a recent one, think of Trudeau. His legacy (for good or ill) lives on today, and still gets Canadians worked up.

I assumed that what you were looking for by "world-historical" was Canadians who had serious significance to world history outside of Canada itself. Note that such a term would exclude people like MLK who, for all his significance within the US, really has none outside it.

Naturally, Canada has had less of an impact in "world-historical" terms than the US, but certainly there have been events in Canada that have had "world-historical" significance - even if the actors were not always Canadian. One example would be the seizure of Quebec from the French by Wolfe.

More recently, another "world-historical" figure would be Lester Pearson - he was the guy mostly responsible for that ambiguous organ of world politics, the UN peacekeeping mission. He won a Nobel for his efforts.

[Valmy]

You'll be lucky to find a Texan who knows any history besides the Alamo.

And really is there anything else worth knowing?

[Martinus]

The problem with America is that it is a world's only dominant culture. So why a person like MLK, or Harvey Milk or Rosa Parks had only a national impact in a direct sense, people all over the world (or at least in Europe and America) continue to be inspired by their examples. This may not be fair but this is reality.

[crazy canuck]

The problem with America is that it is a world's only dominant culture. So why a person like MLK, or Harvey Milk or Rosa Parks had only a national impact in a direct sense, people all over the world (or at least in Europe and America) continue to be inspired by their examples. This may not be fair but this is reality.

Dont know about that.  Most people probably didnt know about Milk until the movie.  Most people probably dont know about Parks unless they have a special interest in that area.  MLK gets a lot of exposure so everyone knows about him but that is in the same way that everyone knows about Ghandi or Mandela - not because of the dominance of American culture but because the story is so compelling.